UVF murder review hears of need for confidentiality

Confidentiality was fundamental to an examination of a UVF murder carried out on the streets of Belfast, the Northern Ireland High Court heard today.

Lawyers for the Secretary of State argued that those who cooperated with a body which investigated the killing of Bobby Moffett received privacy guarantees.

The victim's sister wants a judge to direct that all information gathered by the now defunct Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) must be supplied to the coroner for an inquest. Mr Moffett (43) was shot dead at point blank range in front of shoppers on Belfast's Shankill Road in May 2010.

The IMC issued a special report declaring his murder was sanctioned by the UVF’s leadership months later. The international body concluded that Mr Moffett was targeted due to his perceived flouting of UVF authority, and to send a message to the organisation and the community that this authority was not to be challenged.

‘Public execution’

In its report, the commission described the killing as a public execution, but declined to say that it amounted to a breach of the terror group’s ceasefire. So far only an edited version of the report has been supplied for the purposes of holding an inquest.

Mr Moffett’s sister, Irene Owens, is seeking a judicial review which would compel the Secretary of State to release the dossier in full.

Her lawyers argue that anything less undermines the coroner’s ability to oversee a human rights-compliant inquest. They contend that the IMC only reached its conclusion following a thorough investigation.

According to their case, significant documentation was compiled with firm conclusions about who planned, sanctioned and carried out the murder.

The commission has been constrained from revealing everything it found out, they claimed.

But in court on Monday, counsel for the Secretary of State set out reasons why full disclosure has not taken place.

Tony McGleenan QC said: “The premium placed on confidentiality in this context has been described by the Independent Monitoring Commission itself as fundamental to its work.

“Though it’s now defunct, that’s a principle that lives on.”

He stressed that assurances given to those who participated were legally underpinned.

“There’s the strongest legitimate expectation on the part of those who participated in these enterprises that the confidentiality guarantees would be maintained.”

Mr McGleenan also confirmed the Secretary of State reconsidered the situation after legal proceedings were initiated but decided to maintain the position. The case continues.